A Summit of Prideand Influence?

Canada and the Gleneagles G8COVER STORY BY JOHN KIRTON

Can we really develop Africa, control climate change, stop nuclear pro-liferation and produce secure, sustainable development for all in theworld? The United Nations will take its best shot in September, when

the leaders of its almost 200 members assemble in New York to figure outhow to meet their currently unattainable Millennium Development Goals.But their success will depend critically on the work of a smaller, more selectSummit taking place sooner. On July 6-8 the leaders of the world’s majordemocracies gather in Gleneagles, Scotland, for their annual Group of Eight(G8) meeting, together with some carefully chosen developing country guests.

How Canada performs at Gleneagles on these issues matters. It could do much to determine the future of global sustainable development andCanada’s influence in protecting its national interests and values.

If Canada’s Prime Minister wants to succeed at Gleneagles, he will have toquickly put in place bolder, better policies than the government’s recentInternational Policy Statement proposed.

The G8 has produced some striking successes since the leaders of France,the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy gathered for their firstannual encounter in November 1975. Since their first appearance in 1976,Canadian leaders have made an important contribution on issues close to theCanadian soul. North-South dialogue was advanced by Pierre Trudeau as hostat Montebello, Quebec, in 1981. continued on page 5

EVENTS TOWATCH FOR

ANDDISTINGUISHED LECTURERS

JUNE

The U.S. Civil War:Causes and ConsequencesJune 10 - 11

Japan as a Normal CountryThe 2005 Shibusawa NorthAmerican Seminar, June 18 - 19

SEPTEMBER

Modernity in Question:Montesquieu and His LegacySept. 9 - 10

OCTOBER

Labour Feminism ConferenceSept. 30 - Oct. 1The Second Annual Lipset Lecture With Francis Fukuyama Oct. 19

FEEDBACK

Outraged or inspired by theviews expressed in our pages?Tell us atmunk.monitor@utoronto.ca

FIND US ON THE INTERNET

Check the Munk Centre’s full listing of events atwww.utoronto.ca/mcis/

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

MUNK CENTRE MONITORVIEWS, NEWS, PEOPLE AND EVENTS FROM THE MUNK CENTRE

SUMMER 2005

VIEW FROM THE DIRECTOR

JANICE GROSS STEINDENTALHOW UGLY IS FAILURE?

INTERNATIONALINSTITUTIONS AND THE

WRECKING BALLThe French "non" to the European constitution is sending shock wavesthroughout Europe. It seems almostinconceivable that one of the foundingnations of the European CommonMarket could put the brakes on the build-ing of new European institutions. AngryFrench voters did just that, however, andEurope has woken up the morning afterwith a bad hangover. Where is Europegoing, its architects are asking. DoesEurope have a future? Are we seeing theend of the dream of a united Europe? Theheated European rhetoric about its futureseems somewhat overblown to thosewho listen from afar.

Europeans, not unlike other parts ofthe world, tend to think that their chal-lenges are unique. A similarly anxiousconversation is also going on in NewYork at the United Nations. Here too, the rhetoric is overblown. Here too, theconversation is preoccupied with institu-tional dilemmas, rather than practicalpossibilities.

The United Nations, even some of its strongest defenders argue, is in crisis.The Secretary-General, badly woundedby the oil-for-food scandal, is unable tolead. The United States sees the UN asineffective at best and as an irritatingobstacle at worst. There is deadlock andpessimism about the most importantitems on the global agenda: the MilleniumDevelopment Goals are unlikely to be met by 2015; the review conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was a dismal failure – delegates spent three-quarters of their time discussing processand only got to the real issues in the lastweek; and serious reform of the SecurityCouncil and the General Assembly seemsunlikely. Everything in New York is onhold. There is institutional paralysis. Isthe United Nations about to sink intoirrelevance?

Continued on page 2

H I G H L I G H T S O F T H I S I S S U E

John Kirton on Canada and the Gleneagles G8,

page 1/ Postmark Beijing: a letter from our

correspondent, Bernie Frolic, page 6/The next fight

over genetically modified food, by Harriet Friedmann,

page 7/Students making a difference, page 8.

MUNK CENTREFOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Dealmaking on the golf course: Gleneagles, setting for the G8 Summit.

AT TRINITY COLLEGE

EDITORIAL MISSIONA forum to extend and enhance thecontribution of the Munk Centre forInternational Studies to public debateon important international issues andcontribute to public education.

STAY UP TO DATEFor weekly listings of Munk Centre events subscribe at listserv@listserv.utoronto.ca: subscribe MCIS-L First Name Last Name. Or contactjanet.hyer@utoronto.ca

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 1

Hardly. The future of Europe and ofthe United Nations is not as gloomy asthe nay-sayers would have us believe. Inboth Brussels and New York, when thehangover wears off, determined leaderswill pick up pieces of the institutionalagenda and build more modest pack-ages. Canadians understand all too wellthat constitutional agreement is not aprerequisite for progress on economicand social issues. Europeans will have toinvest more energy in coordination andcollaboration than in designing newinstitutions. Europe will have to workwhere it matters most, on the ground.Here Canadians have interesting storiesto tell.

In New York, if members cannotagree on Security Council reform, thenthe Secretariat can do a great deal toreform itself. A group of like-mindedstates can unpack the development agenda and push forward action on debt relief and investment. The humanrights agenda is hardly dependent on the discredited UN Human RightsCommission. Much can be accom-plished by going around ineffectiveinstitutions. We know very well inCanada that when member states workclosely with the Secretary-General andlead, others follow.

There is one common thread runningthrough the heated debates in New Yorkand Europe, a thread that has little to dowith institutional problems or fixes.Angry voters in France expressed theiropposition to "elite" bargains that leftthem feeling vulnerable to unemploy-ment and the loss of social benefits.Similar kinds of politics are also playingthemselves out in Germany. In NewYork, the Group of 77 that speaks forsouthern states gives voice to its anger atthe global bargain that allows incomeinequality to widen. The deeper prob-lems in Europe and at the UnitedNations are the widening disparities inincome, and the growing gap betweenelites who promote the benefits of inte-gration and mobility and those who feeldisconnected and ignored. The primarychallenge is not new constitutions, orreformed institutions. It is a new kind ofconversation between those who governand those they represent.

Janice Gross Stein, Director of the MunkCentre for International Studies, is anacknowledged expert on conflict resolutionand international relations, with an empha-sis on the Middle East. A Fellow of theTrudeau Foundation, Professor Stein hasserved on many international advisory pan-els, including the Working Group on MiddleEast Negotiations at the United StatesInstitute of Peace. She is currently a mem-ber of the Education Advisory Board to theMinister of Defence. Professor Stein is theco-author of We All Lost the Cold War(1994) and The Cult of Efficiency (2001).

NEED A SOURCE?

Munk Centre scholars can be

contacted for further comment on

issues raised in this edition at

munk.centre@utoronto.ca.

Commentators in this issue:

Bernie Frolic, Senior Research

Fellow of the Asian Institute;

Harriet Friedmann, Professor,

Centre for International Studies and

Visiting Fellow, All Souls College,

Oxford University;

John Kirton, Director of the G8

Research Group,

Research Associate of the Centre

for International Studies;

Janice Gross Stein, Director, Munk

Centre for International Studies.

MUNK CENTRE MONITOR

Director of Editorial Janice Stein

Editor James Fleming

Art Director Lawrence Finn

Assistant Editor Janet Hyer

Information Systems Scott Bohaker

Contributors: Jason De Zilva,

Oksana Kachur, Laurentiu Luca,

Suelan Toye

Editorial Board: Janice Gross Stein,

Michael Donnelly, Rick Halpern,

Jeffrey Kopstein, Louis W. Pauly,

Peter H. Solomon, Jr.

Published seasonally and distributedto international opinion leaders ingovernment, business, universitiesand the media by the Munk Centrefor International Studies. Director: Janice Gross Stein, Executive Director: Marketa Evans.Munk Centre for InternationalStudies, University of Toronto, 1 Devonshire Place,Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3K7Phone: 416-946-8900email: munk.centre@utoronto.cawebsite: www.utoronto.ca/mcis

T H E M U N K C E N T R E M O N I T O RVIEW FROM THE DIRECTOR 1

COVER STORYA Summit of Pride and Influence? Canada and the Gleneagles G8 BY JOHN KIRTON 1

CENTRE EVENTSThe Gelber Prize is awarded to Steve Coll 2

Wolfensohn Issues a Call to Action 3

Uneven Odds: Terrorists vs. The Public 3

History on Wheels 3

Chinese Internet Checkers 4

Insights from Deepa Mehta 4

CENTRE INSIGHTS

Cover Story CONTINUED 5

Letter from Beijing, May 20, 2005 BY BERNIE FROLIC 6

Cross-Contamination: the Next BattlegroundOver Genetically Modified Food BY HARRIET FRIEDMANN 7

BACK PAGEClassrooms Without Borders: Enriching the Student Experience 8

CONTENTS

VIEW FROM THE DIRECTOR

Continued from page 1

2

Astanding-room-only audiencewas on hand at the Munk Centrein late March for the presenta-

tion of the 2004 Gelber Prize to SteveColl, author of Ghost Wars: The SecretHistory of the CIA, Afghanistan, and binLaden, from the Soviet Invasion toSeptember 10, 2001.

In his acceptance speech, Coll dis-cussed troubling questions about U.S.policy in Afghanistan, beginning in the1980s when the CIA engaged in covertoperations against Soviet troops. Whydid the U.S. fail to see the Taliban as an

enemy? Was it wise for the CIA to essentially “subcontract” the job of dealingwith the politics of Jihad to the Pakistani Army? And he described the ragingpolicy debate that took place within the middle levels of the U.S. bureaucracyafter the Taliban’s rise to power. The CIA opposed further U.S. involvement: it believed that the goal of forcing the Soviets to leave had been accomplishedand that it was a fallacy to think that the U.S. could contribute to a viable stateafter the Soviets left. Other factions, notably in the State Department, favoureda continued U.S. role, arguing that it was important to continue to undermine theSoviets in Central Asia. But the debate never reached the cabinet level, and theresult was “indifference.” Only the feminists, who pushed for the U.S. to dosomething about human rights and the treatment of women under the Taliban,got it right, said Coll.

Coll only touched on highlights from his compelling book, which examinestwo decades of invasion, resistance, espionage and politics in Afghanistan,details the rise of Osama bin Laden and the planning that led to the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. It probes the covert operations of the CIA, the KGB and other nations’ spy networks involved in Afghanistan, andexamines the weapons and tactics of terrorists. Subsequent to winning theGelber, Coll’s book also won a Pulitzer Prize, the second of Coll’s career.

The Lionel Gelber Prize is presented annually by the Lionel GelberFoundation in partnership with the Munk Centre for International Studies at theUniversity of Toronto and Foreign Policy magazine.

Gelber PrizeTHE LIONEL GELBER PRIZE

2004 WinnerTHE WORLD’S MOST IMPORTANT PRIZE FOR NON-FICTION

©L

eib

Kop

man

Winner Coll: all the right questions.

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 2

3 SUMMER 2005

Wolfensohn Issues a Call to Action

Shortly before retiring asPresident of the World Bankearlier this year, James

Wolfensohn delivered an inspiringaddress to students gathered at theMunk Centre. In remarks entitled"Be a Force for Change: The Role of Youth in InternationalDevelopment," Wolfensohn chal-lenged youth to get actively involvedin the world’s urgent developmentissues. "Engaging youth is not luxury, it’s a necessity when it comesto issues of development," he said.

"The world is very much in transition," he noted. There are currently 6 billion people in thedeveloping world, with 2.8 billionunder age 24, and another 1.8 billionunder 14. By 2015, the population of the developing world is expectedto rise to about 8 billion. With agrowing proportion of youth, theissue of poverty and the related issue of creating jobs for youth are of utmost importance. "We mustaddress the needs of young people,"he said, citing the example of Gaza,

where "45 percent are without jobs, there is widespread poverty."Wolfensohn retains his personalcommitment to these issues: after his retirement from the Bank, he was appointed the World Bank’s Special Envoy for GazaDisengagement.

Today’s youth are inheritingmajor challenges, he said. If youconsider the millennium goals set bythe United Nations in 2000, whichaim to reduce poverty in all its formsby 50 percent by 2015, "we have hadsome movement." For example,there has been improvement in childmortality. But on the broader goals,"if you take out China and a few others, we find that developingcountries are moving backwards."He noted that about 200 million people live on under $1 a day.

"Youth haven’t had much voiceuntil now," he said. "But the situa-tion requires an active voice byyouth, not just in studying issues ofinternational development butengaging in them."

Rather than a reflective farewell,Wolfensohn delivered a stimulatingcall to action for the Munk Centreaudience.

CENTRE EVENTS

Uneven Odds:Terrorists vs. The Public

The bad guys are rapidlybecoming more powerful,"stated Professor Thomas

Homer-Dixon. The University ofToronto professor made his chillingobservation at a recent Munk Centreevent on Public Security and Terrorism.

One of a series in the SharedCitizenship Public Lectures, spon-sored by the Lt. Governor ofOntario, James K. Bartleman, theComparative Program on Health and Society and the Munk Centre,the seminar explored the nature andorigins of terrorism and security.

After an introduction by the Lt.Governor, the event featured presen-tations by three leading experts:Homer-Dixon, Director of theTrudeau Centre for Peace andConflict Studies; Dr. James Young,Special Advisor on Public Safety and Security to the Government ofCanada; and Dr. Kate Gillespie, anIrish psychiatrist who is expert onthe psychological effects of terror-ism and civic violence.

The new aspects of terrorismtoday, according to ProfessorHomer-Dixon, are the terrorists’"increased capacity to destroy" and"the increased vulnerability of eco-nomic, political and social systemsto attack." There has been a shift indestructive power to small groupsfor two reasons. First, improvementsin weapons technology. Weapons arebetter and cheaper, especially lightweapons such as assault rifles and

rocket propelled grenades. Second,biological and chemical weapons.For example, there are about 1,000tonnes of highly enriched uranium inthe world, with 600 tonnes in inse-cure locations in the former SovietUnion. "One hundred kilogramswould produce a bomb that coulddestroy New York. This is a very significant security concern, he said.

Our increasing vulnerability to terrorism stems from the rising inter-connectivity of our society’s techno-logical, economic and psychologicalnetworks. Examples include powerblackouts on our connected grids andthe effects of the 9/11 attacks, whichled to border closures and factoryshutdowns as just-in-time deliverieswere interrupted. Homer-Dixonargued that we can reduce this vulnerability with increased bufferingin our systems and increased redun-dancy in our critical hubs.

Dr. Young agreed that the eventsof 9/11 served as a wake up call for Canada. "We’d already had theAir India bombing, the first WorldTrade Center attack, and embassybombings, but we still didn’t thinkwe were vulnerable in North America,"he observed. Since then, Canada has introduced laws to better managethe situation, including an Anti-terrorism Act and a Public SafetyAct. For her part, Dr. Gillespie pro-vided a first-hand account of thedevastating psychological effects of violence in Northern Ireland. Hercomments underscored the urgencyof preventing violence against innocent civilians.

"

©L

eib

Kop

man

©R

ick

Hal

pern

Presenters Brandi Lucier (Windsor),and Steve Myer (Wisconsin).

HISTORY ON WHEELS

Cars: they are everywhere, andso are their effects on our culture, our geography, our

psychology and our social relations.The far-reaching impacts of the car onour society were the subject of fasci-nating discussions at a Munk Centreconference in May. A roster of leadingscholars gathered to discuss "The Car in History: Business, Space, and

Culture in North America," at thethree-day event, hosted by the Centrefor the Study of the United States.

After a tour of the state-of-theart Toyota plant in Cambridge,Ont., on day one, presenters dis-cussed impacts that are commonlyseen but not well understood by the public:• the overall erosion of city-scapes

with the introduction of parkinglots as a predominant occupant ofdowntown land-use;

• the evolution of the relationshipbetween the corporation and theemployee;

• the impact of highway develop-ment and with it, the creation ofcorridor communities and uniquecar cultures;

• the car’s role in democratizing thecottage experience in Ontario;

• the relationship between masculin-ity and the car.

Wolfensohn: “about 200 million people live on under $1 a day.”

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 3

million Internet users. China has achieved a high level of

success by targeting critical "choke-points" where communications canbe blocked or intercepted, accordingto Ronald Deibert, Director of theCitizen Lab at the Munk Centre."These lie in the subterranean layers of the Internet – the routers,exchange points and gateways."

Citizens engaging in prohibitedon-line activities can find them-selves reported to governmentauthorities. For example, a 1996decree requires that all subscribers toInternet Service Providers (ISPs)must register with their local policebureau, and gives power to policecomputer investigation organiza-tions to investigate alleged com-plaints. A 2000 decree requires ISPsto track users’ account numbers,when users are online and whichsites customers visit. Since ISPs canbe held responsible for user viola-tions, they often implement theirown monitoring and censoring func-tions on everything from searches topersonal email messages.

More recently, China has movedto impose stricter controls on bur-geoning university bulletin boardsystems, which have becomeincreasingly popular with studentsand non-students alike. TheEducation Ministry ordered that the universities censor the bulletinboards and shut down ones on which "harmful" information hasbeen spread.

"China’s filtering regime is one ofthe most sophisticated in its ability todetect and prevent access to contentthat the state considers prohibited,"says the report. As Deibert warns,China’s advanced filtering system"presents a model for other countrieswith similar interests in censorshipto follow."

Chinese InternetCheckers

Aground-breaking report bythe OpenNet Initiative(ONI), a partnership of three

leading university research teams,has drawn a disturbing picture ofInternet censorship in China. "Chinaoperates the most extensive, techno-logically sophisticated, and broadreaching system of Internet filteringin the world," says the report. "Theimplications of this distorted on-lineinformation environment for China’susers are profound, and disturbing."

The report, which attracted world-wide media coverage, is the productof intensive research by the CitizenLab at the Munk Centre, theBerkman Center for Internet andSociety at Harvard Law School, andthe Advanced Network ResearchGroup at the University ofCambridge. It was released in Aprilat a congressional hearing of theU.S. Senate in Washington, by a representative of the Citizen Lab,Nart Villeneuve, and two colleaguesfrom the Berkman Center.

Called "Internet Filtering in China2004-2005: A Country Study," thereport documents an extensive cen-sorship regime that blocks prohibit-ed subjects on Web sites, Web Logs(Blogs), cyber-cafes, email and on-line discussion forums.

According to the report, control-ling political speech, rather thanpornography, appears to be the top priority of the government.Chinese citizens wishing to accessinformation on such subjects asTaiwan, Tibetan independence, theTiananmen Square uprising in 1989,or opposition political parties, willfrequently find themselves blocked.Even the Google search engine is filtered for China’s roughly 100

CENTRE EVENTS

4

Insights from Deepa Mehta

W orld-acclaimed Canadianfilmmaker Deepa Mehtadiscussed how Asian

Canadians are portrayed in the filmindustry and talked about her currentand upcoming work at an eveninglecture in May. Held at the KofflerInstitute for Pharmacy Management,the public lecture was part of theUniversity of Toronto’s celebrationof Asian Heritage Month. The eventwas organized and sponsored by theUniversity of Toronto’s Office ofStudent Affairs, the Asian Institute at the Munk Centre and the HongKong Economic and Trade Office(Canada).

About 200 people gathered in thelecture theatre to hear her speakabout her upcoming film, Water, tobe released in November. Student

affairs officer Nouman Ashraf interviewed her about other docu-mentary work she has undertakenand they discussed the importance of challenging the way South Asiansare traditionally typecast in movies.A short segment of Water was also shown during the lecture.Chancellor Vivienne Poy gave wel-coming remarks at the lecture andintroduced Mehta and Ashraf.Following Mehta’s lecture, a shortfilm, A Century of Hong KongCinema, was shown.

Since its inaugural celebration in1993, Asian Heritage Month hasacknowledged the long and rich history of Asian Canadians and theircontributions to Canada. The motionto designate May as Asian HeritageMonth was introduced by ChancellorPoy in the Canadian Senate in 2001.By Suelan Toye, a news services offi-cer at U of T’s Public Affairs Office.

Mehta and Chancellor Vivienne Poy: at issue, how South Asians are portrayed in films.

IN THE NEWSMunk Centre scholars recently made news for AWARDS and HONOURS: Director Janice Gross Stein was elected as a Foreign Honorary Member of theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences, one of the most prestigious scholarly academies in the United States. Professor Stein was cited as a "pioneer in thefields of negotiation theory and international conflict management" by the Cambridge-based organization, which honours men and women who are leadersin scholarship, business, the arts and public affairs. As well, Linda Hutcheon, U of T Professor of English, and a driving force behind the Munk Centre’sHumanities Initiative to bring culture to the community, was one of five winners of the Killam Prize for 2005. The $100,000 prize, administered by the CanadaCouncil, is the country’s highest recognition for outstanding academic career achievement by scholars in a variety of fields. APPOINTMENTS: ProfessorLouis Pauly, Director of the Centre for International Studies, was named the inaugural Roberta Buffett Visiting Professor in International Studies atNorthwestern University in Illinois. KUDOS: go to Professor Michael Donnelly, who is stepping down as Director of the Asian Institute, after guiding itthrough its birth and establishing its world-wide reputation; and to Professor Peter Solomon, who is retiring as Director of the Centre for Russian and EastEuropean Studies after a dynamic five years, during which it substantively expanded its reach and presence in the field.

©L

eib

Kop

man

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 4

5

INSIGHTS

CANADA AND THE GLENEAGLES G8

continued from page 1

Brian Mulroney, with Dr. SylviaOstry as his personal representative,or "sherpa," inaugurated debt relieffor the poorest when they held theSummit in Toronto, in part on theUniversity of Toronto campus, in1988. Under Jean Chrétien, theSummit produced historic advancesin environmental protection inHalifax in 1995 and in Africandevelopment and nuclear non-prolif-eration in Kananaskis in 2002. By backing such initiatives with targeted actions and billions of dollars in cash commitments, the G8 has proven itself to be an effec-tive forum for progress, rather than a platform for well-meaningrhetoric.

Will British Prime Minister TonyBlair live up to this legacy as hostthis year? While Blair has just wonan historic third majority, his supportfor Bush’s 2003 war in Iraq helpedslash his margin of victory, and themonth he took off to campaign hasmade the preparations forGleneagles frustratingly late. Still,Blair is one of the very few leadersto host the Summit for a secondtime. He will welcome the samegroup of G8 leaders, save for Martin,for an unprecedented five years in arow.

Blair identified his agenda a year and a half ago. It centres onAfrica (sub-Saharan Africa is theonly region that has become poorerin the last generation) and climatechange, caused by greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere. Blair has stubbornly stuck with this agenda,set aggressive but achievable objectives, created an influentialAfrican Commission to push hiscase, mounted an intense scheduleof lead-up G8 ministerial meetingsand bilateral summit visits, and invited the right developingcountries, notably China, India,Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, toGleneagles as guests. The Britishhave also consulted intensively withcivil society, in part through the session held by British sherpa, Sir Michael Jay, and Canadian sherpa, Peter Harder, at the MunkCentre on April 8th (see webcast at www.g8.utoronto.ca).

Bush: A potential wild cardYet if Blair is to succeed, he

must bring on board the G8’s leadingsustainable development skeptic,American president George W. Bush.

Bush will arrive self-confidentlysporting the G8’s strongest currencyand growth rate, the biggest newelectoral victory and the glow ofhosting a productive G8 Summit atSea Island, Georgia, last year.Bolstered by recent triumphs fordemocracy in Ukraine and Georgia,Bush could well want the G8 to stay focused on his Sea Island crusade of bringing freedom to the broader Middle East. Iran’s

nuclear sabre-rattling or moreMiddle East terrorism might alsobring back the divisive ghost ofIraq.

Still, Bush owes one to Blair,Italy’s Berlusconi and Japan’sKoizumi, who also put boots on the ground in Iraq and who arecommitted to promoting sustain-able development. So is much ofBush’s Christian evangelical base,which wants to stop genocide inDarfur and the rapacious exploita-tion of an earth that they feelbelongs to God, not man. Bushhimself knows that poverty inAfrica can breed terrorism againstAmerica. He also knows that heneeds a coordinated program ofinternational energy conservationto control America’s rising energyinsecurity, gas prices, inflationarypressures and current accountdeficit. While some of his ideo-logues may dream of turning Saudi

Arabia into a secure petro-democracy,as a realist Texas oilman, Bush knowsthat supply-side solutions lie more inthe barrels-in-hand in Canada, Russia,Mexico, and Nigeria, whose leadersare all conveniently assembled at theGleneagles G8.

An Agenda for CanadaTo bring Bush and his G8

friends together politically, Canadashould act fast. Canada’s political

leaders, currently pre-occupiedleaders, pre-occupied with theirown domestic political and nation-al unity distractions, shouldremember two things. First,Canadians care deeply aboutAfrica, the world’s only otherbilingual English-French politicalspace full of fellow family mem-bers in the Commonwealth and La francophonie. Second, for thepast 15 years almost all Canadianshave always chosen global envi-ronmental protection as their firstforeign policy priority.

Some cautious Canadians maywant to wait until September, whenCanada’s international initiatives innearby New York might be morevisible to the voters back home.But while Canadians, as idealists,worship the broadly multilateralUnited Nations when they relax onthe weekends, as realists they counton the G8 to do the difficult jobs ina dangerous world during the work

week. Canadians expect their leaders to deliver at the G8 Summitthe global public goods that reflect Canada’s national interestsand its distinctive national valuesof democratic multiculturalism,global environmental protectionand nuclear non-proliferation.

To forward these values atGleneagles, Canada needs betterpolicies than those its InternationalPolicy Statement proclaimed. Ondevelopment, Canada should turnthe G8 from fruitless debates aboutpledging 0.7 percent of GDP toofficial development assistance atsome distant date and toward deliv-ering more money now to supportgood governance, private sectordevelopment and trade liberaliza-tion with recipients committed to making international assistancework. It should also offer far more than the "responsibility toprotect" principle, backed by 100 or so unarmed Canadian military observers, to stop thegenocide in Darfur. On global environmental protection in thepost-Kyoto era, Canada shouldimpose an initial one-dollar a tick-et "sustainable departure" tax on allinternational airline passengerflights leaving Canada, and pioneera new World EnvironmentalOrganization to promote sustain-able development as an integratedwhole. To combat nuclear prolifer-ation, and a now obsolete culture of nuclear deterrence, Canadashould support permanent mem-bership on the United NationsSecurity Council for Japan andGermany, fellow G8 democraciesthat are the world’s second-and third-ranked powers and thatshare the anti-nuclear sustainabledevelopment values so close toCanadians’ hearts. If the govern-ment puts its mind to it, Canadacould actually produce, rather than merely proclaim, a foreignpolicy of pride and influence, witha Gleneagles performance as thefirst step.

Professor John Kirton is Director of the G8 Research Group, a global network of scholars, students and professionals founded at the Centre for International Studies when Canada hosted the G7 Summit in 1988.

SUMMER 2005

Shoulder to shoulder here: G8 sherpas Peter Harder (Canada) at left, and Michael Jay (U.K.) discuss the upcoming G8 summit at a Munk Centre event.

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 5

eroded by the forces of marketiza-tion and globalization? We see somemodest political openings at the locallevel and in the stirrings of civil society. There is progress in humanrights and in the rule of law. A visitorcan talk openly to people aboutdemocracy and political issues,although the limits of political dis-course are apparent on the Internet,where a filtering regime can blockproscribed topics. (See page 4.)

But the fact is the 70 million mem-bers of the Communist Party are incharge and, for the most part, this isacceptable to the large majority ofChinese. As long as the economyprospers and the Party can providegood governance, its legitimacy issecured and China will not readilydemocratize. The top Party leaders Ihave met here could be at home in anywestern executive boardroom, in anyleadership position. What I see here isthe remarkable ability of the Party toadapt itself to the changing needs ofChina. In my meetings with seniorParty officials here I’m continuallyamazed at how they’ve responded tothe challenges of governance, even asI realize how little we know abouthow they perform behind the scenes.

China continues to confoundthose who presume to understand it. Twenty-five years of unfetteredeconomic growth? How is that possible? A "peaceful rise" for afuture superpower without militaryaggression? Can that happen? ACommunist Party able to steer itspeople into full-blown capitalismwithout losing its discipline or legitimacy? Is that likely? After 40 years, China has changed dramatically. It’s less isolated, richer,more like us. We know more aboutChina than we ever did, but still itremains a puzzle.

up from 7.8 percent. All around us,both in Beijing and in the provinces,you can feel the energy; you can seethe growth, the great transformationtaking place. China’s two-way tradehas passed $US one trillion. Fifteenyears ago, China was still a curiosityin the international trading game.Now it commands respect. In Asia,China has become the dominanttrading partner for Japan, SouthKorea and Taiwan, and beyond theregion, it has risen to be the secondlargest American trading partner –likely to overtake Canada in the nextdecades.

As China muscles into the worldeconomy, will its economic "rise" beaccompanied by military aggression,as has been the case with every othergreat power that has come before it?The debate here over China’s "rise" is vigorous. At my Beijing Institute,Chinese scholars say that in the newglobalized world China can be aneconomic power without being anaggressor nation. At the Law andPolitics University in Chongqing stu-dents argue that China is different. Ithas made peace with the 15 countrieson its border. Only Taiwan remainsand the recent visits by Chan andSoong are a step towards resolvingthe Taiwan problem. A foreign diplo-mat in Beijing observes that thefuture is not about borders or Taiwan;it’s all about energy. China needs oiland gas and will do anything to get it.Access to energy and to raw materialswill drive China in the 21st century.Whether this can be done peacefullyremains to be seen.

Today economic growth andChina’s "peaceful rise" are at the topof the agenda. What about politicalreform? For how long can China stayan authoritarian system? Is theCommunist Party’s legitimacy being

BERNIE FROLIC

After two days of rain, Beijingis again sunny and warm.We can see the Western

Hills from our downtown apartment window. The pollution has lifted.Construction is non-stop. Narrowhutongs (alleys) vanish brick bybrick before our eyes. Today thereare massive scaffoldings. Tomorrowglossy high rises. The media haveobsessed for days over the recentvisits of Taiwan’s two oppositionparty leaders, Lien Chan and JamesSoong. Easing cross-Strait tensionswas the big story. This week’s bigstory is the World Forum of Fortune500 Companies. Eight hundred foreign executives feted lavishly inthe Great Hall of the People as China pays homage to the power of international business and toChina’s embrace of globalization.

Each time in China I’m astoundedby the pace and depth of change.Forty years ago during my first visit, China was immobile, poor, ideologically ridden, isolated, strug-gling to industrialize. Now at theForum, President Hu Jin Tao putsforth the slogan, "You come, youprofit, we all prosper." So China is nolonger afraid to let us in; no longerfearful of joining forces with capital-ism inside China or abroad. ThisChina, once communist, has foundcapitalism, likes it very much and willsoon be beating us at our own game.

After 25 consecutive years, how long can the economic boomcontinue? We hear about decliningfixed asset investment; a chronicallyweak banking system; low consumerdemand; huge income gaps; simmering inflation. Yet the WorldBank just raised its 2005 growthforecast for China to 8.3 percent,

INSIGHTS

LETTER FROM BEIJING, MAY 20, 2005

6

Bernie Frolic

is Senior Research Fellow

of the

Asian Institute.

A Chinese worker inspects spoolsin a textile company at Huaibei.

©L

eib

Kop

man

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 6

HARRIET FRIEDMANN

We take for granted theabundance in our super-markets, but in solving

problems of supply through globaltrade, in which genetically modifiedfood crops circulate widely, we have opened a Pandora’s box of newproblems that could threaten foodsecurity for everyone. Among them:the potential contamination of othermajor food crops by geneticallymodified varieties.

Scientists have engineered desir-able traits into food crops, such asresistance to pests. But plants repro-duce on their own, in unintendedplaces, and the uncontrolled spreadof traits to non-engineered plantscarries potential dangers. Forinstance, insects could become resistant to the natural pesticidecalled Bt, which has been engineeredinto maize and potatoes. If they do,humans would be set back in ourcompetition with other species forfood crops.

Little wonder that calls for thecontrol, monitoring and labelling of Genetically Engineered (GE)crops have become a flashpoint intrade disputes – the European Unionrecently banned import of U.S.maize discovered to have an unap-proved variant of Bt. And that theseconcerns are at the centre of a widerdebate on the "traceability" of theorigins and ingredients of our foodsupplies.

Traceability is the new word for reorganizing the food system.Safety scares have led to majorrecalls in the U.S., such as when atype of maize not intended forhuman consumption entered themanufacturing system. Alarm overBSE ("mad cow") disease in Europeand North America has added to theimpetus for new regulations and procedures. Private sector rules aremoving quickly to create auditedsupply chains, even across nationalborders, so that products can bemonitored. What will be the role ofgovernments, which have tradition-ally regulated food safety, and ofinter-governmental organizationsnow that food is increasingly tradedinternationally?

CROSS CONTAMINATION:THE NEXT BATTLEGROUND OVER GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

The most serious dilemma relatedto traceability is the contaminationof major food crops by seeds.Trading partners have divided intocamps over the issue, partly alongNorth-South lines. On one side arethe proponents of rigorous controls:the European Union, which recentlyreplaced an outright ban on geneti-cally modified crops with traceabili-ty regulations; Norway; and most ofthe global South. The South, afterall, is the location of most of thepeasant agriculture and continuinggenetical diversity in food grains that is under threat. On the other sideare the major exporters, includingthe United States, Canada, Argentinaand Brazil.

Concerns about contamination are legitimate. Because wind andinsects carry pollen from one plant toanother, and neither respects nation-al borders, genetically engineeredplants may cross-pollinate with oth-ers. An early warning comes fromsalmon, which have been engineeredto be larger –- a typical goal inincreasing productivity. When theyescape, they are better able to mateand threaten the survival of wildspecies. In the case of crops, the wildrelatives of GE plants have mostlydisappeared, and the threat is to "lan-draces" – the food crops that haveevolved over thousands of yearsthrough selection and exchange byfarmers. With grains, contaminationis possible at any stage. Seeds canfall out of bags at ports and localmarkets. Seeds can be diverted tofarmers. GE seeds can be inadver-tently mixed with other seeds, andpeople have planted them, knowing-ly or not.

Landraces evolved, and continueto evolve, in the sites where theywere first domesticated, which arecalled "Vavilov Centres." Wheat was first cultivated in West CentralAsia, along with barley, grapes,apples and flax. Rice and soybeans,as well as oranges and tea, camefrom China and Japan. Bananas,sugar cane and yams came fromsoutheast Asia. Maize, potato, sweetpotato, cassava, tomato and cottoncame from South America.Sorghum, millet and coffee camefrom Africa. These regions remaincrucial to continuing adaptation and

renewal of genetic diversity.Peasants cultivate hundreds of varieties of plants to accommodatespecific conditions, to minimize riskand to create the many tastes andtextures for daily and ritual dishes.They share and exchange seeds, creating extended networks of geneflow. These have served humanitywell over massive changes in climateand society.

By contrast, commercial crops,which are concentrated in exportregions, have been selected more foruniformity. Uniform fields of wheat,maize and soy are like banquets forpests and disease organisms. Peasantvarieties continue to provide geneticmaterial to scientists to fix problemsto which export monocultures havefallen prey. It is an open questionwhether preserving varieties in genebanks can replace the continuingwork of peasant farmers, even if weare willing to place our trust in sci-ence and the market to stay ahead ofcrop failures.

Of course, introducing GE cropsin export regions like North Americaalso creates problems of contamina-tion for farmers who wish to growconventional, including "organic,"varieties. Another concern is thegrowing dominance of large foodand agricultural companies that lead the research, development and production of GE crops. Withwidening definitions of intellectualproperty, these non-accountable private organizations tend to central-ize control of seeds. Whoever con-trols them, they require segregationof varieties.

But these issues are dwarfed bythe problems of contamination inVavilov Centres. How they areresolved will ultimately have majorimplications for the global food supply. Effective steps to preventcontamination include segregationand labelling of specific GE organisms, and promoting the rapiddevelopment of the clearing houseon information about GE cropsunder the Protocol on Biosafety ofthe Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Canada’s interest as anexporter should not overwhelm ourlarger responsibility to preserve theintegrity of the food crops on whichall humans depend.

INSIGHTS

7 SUMMER 2005

Harriet Friedmann

is Professor,

Centre for International Studies

at the Munk Centre.

She is currently Visiting Fellow,

All Souls College,

Oxford University.

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 7

Building a community: initiatives by the energetic 2004-2005 executive of the International RelationsSociety enriched the education of fellow students. They included special guest lecturers at the

Munk Centre and social nights. Members are: (top row, left to right) Adam Sheikh and Jake Hirsch-Allen(co-presidents), Amy McCulloch (Web master) and Ryan Maclean (communications director).

Bottom Row, left to right Astrid Mannheim (treasurer), Jonathan English (Web master) and Melanie Filippopulous (1st year rep). Not pictured: Sadia Rafiquddin (1st year rep).

8

BACK PAGE

CLASSROOMS WITHOUT BORDERS: ENRICHING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Kartick Kumar onTheory and PraxisKartick Kumar, a graduating fourth-year student in International Relationsand Political Science, has been anenergetic and ubiquitous presencearound the Munk Centre. He hasworked part-time at the Centre forRussian and East European Studies(CREES) for four years, helping toorganize distinguished lecture events.But that is only one of his involve-ments. He’s an activist, scholar, ath-lete and all-around admirable person.Over lunch, Robert Austin, Lecturerand Project Coordinator at CREES,tried to figure out how he does it.

Robert Austin: You never stop.Whether it’s your work here atCREES, your academic endeavours,or your extracurricular work with theCambodian Genocide Group. Whatkeeps you going?

Kartick Kumar: I came here for aneducation. I do not separate educationfrom action; that is to say, I want touse my education to make a differencein the world. The InternationalRelations Programme teaches stu-dents about the world, but it alsoteaches us ways we can becomeinvolved. I picked up on that.

My student colleagues here have alot of confidence that there areresources out there, whether here atthe University, the government, orthe private sector, that can beobtained to make a difference outsidethe classroom.

Austin: Tell me a bit more about theCambodian Genocide Group that youlead.

Kumar: It started in 2002 as an advo-cacy group to inform the universitycommunity and wider public aboutwhat happened in Cambodia between1975 and 1979. It now has student-runaffiliates in Quebec, British Columbia,California and Massachusetts. Thisyear the group has really transformeditself. Our main purpose now is tobring about reconciliation and justice.We are doing this by documenting thestories of genocide survivors who livein Canada and the United States.These people have been left out of the

justice process in Cambodia. We doc-ument their stories and put them on adigital database. This serves twoobjectives. One is historical, to ensurethat the genocide will not be forgot-ten. The other is to obtain testimonyfor potential use in a future KhmerRouge trial.

Austin: You were in Cambodia lastsummer. What was your agenda?

Kumar: My agenda was to work withthe Documentation Centre of Cambodiaresearching their methods so that I amable to apply them to our operations inCanada and the United States. I wasalso there to get a sense of just how thegenocide happened. I needed to betterunderstand the ideology that droveevents there to such a tragic end.

Austin: What lies in the future foryou?

Kumar: This summer, I’m headed toKenya to begin an eight-month intern-ship with Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency. Following that, Iam going to Cambodia to monitor thestart of the genocide trial. Longer term, I plan to pursue a degree inInternational Human Rights Law,which I will begin in September 2006 atthe University of Chicago Law School.

Austin: You were also a Don at St.Michael’s College this year. Whatadvice do you have for first-year students who want to make the mostof their four years here?

Kumar: Get involved from the startin whatever your passion is. Seek outfaculty and take advantage of theirknowledge. The Munk Centre is aperfect place to do this, as everyoneis right here. It sounds like a cliché,but you really have to make the mostof the opportunities afforded here.

Austin: Last question. Who do youmost admire in the world?

Kumar: My parents. They havegiven me so much opportunity. Theymoved here from Kenya. My fathergave up a successful business and mymother a successful career so that wecould take advantage of what theWest had to offer. I have learned a lotfrom my parents about sacrifice.They also gave me a strong socialconscience. That is what drove me toset up the Cambodian GenocideGroup. It also made me get involvedwith the Refugee Health Project,Doctors Without Borders, CanadianLawyers for International HumanRights, the Trinity OverseasDevelopment through EducationCommittee, the G8 Research Groupand the Munk Centre’s InternationalDevelopment Seminar Series.

Austin: Kartick, many thanks.

©L

eib

Kop

man

Making the IssuesCome Alive

Studying the Arab-Israeli conflict became more than a textbook exercise for a

group of U of T students this pastDecember. About 16 students, mostof them from the Munk Centre’s MA in International Relations(MAIR) program, traveled toHebrew University in Jerusalem foran intensive, two-week graduatecourse on the Management andResolution of the Arab-IsraeliConflict. Sponsors for this secondannual trip were the CanadianFriends of Hebrew University ofJerusalem Fund (CFHUJF) and U of T’s Political Science Department.

Students raved about the studyprogram, despite a heavy workload –a full semester was crammed intotwo weeks – and a long reading list.

Said Andrew Gross: “The trip wasincredibly full, in so many ways.Throughout our time in Israel, Ithink we learned far more about therelevant issues than imaginablethrough books alone.”

The trip mixed classroom ses-sions, taught by Professor YaacovBar-Simon-Tov, with field expedi-tions. Students visited such sites asthe Jezreel Valley, the Sea of Galileeand the Golan Heights, as well theJerusalem suburbs and constructionsites of the security wall. “We arethrilled to be able to give students anopportunity to get a first-hand per-spective on some of the issues theyhave studied, ” said Merle Goldman,National Director, Academic Affairsfor CFHUJF. Credit for the trip alsogoes to organizers Carolynn Brantonand Yoel Nesson, and to AssociateProfessor Simone Chambers, MAsupervisor with MAIR.

Kumar: making a difference outside the classroom.

©L

eib

Kop

man

On location in Israel: being there gave the study group a deeper understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

T40950-Summer 2005.qx5 6/9/05 11:07 AM Page 8